Читать книгу The Handbook of Solitude - Группа авторов - Страница 27

In addition to functioning as an important moderator between shyness and socioemotional outcomes, self‐regulation can also inform our understanding of different subtypes of shyness (e.g., positive and nonpositive expressions of shyness). As highlighted previously, individuals who display positive affect in conjunction with shy‐related behaviors (i.e., positive shyness) are thought to be distinct from individuals who display primarily negative or neutral affect in conjunction with shy‐related behaviors (i.e., nonpositive shyness).

In infancy, positive shyness has been most commonly identified through infants’ expressions of a coy smile (Colonnesi et al., 2013; Reddy, 2000). Behaviorally, coy smiles include the presence of a smile paired with gaze and/or head aversion that occurs before or during the decline of the peak of the smile (Colonnesi et al., 2013). In infants, coy smiles are most often observed in the presence of a stranger (Colonnesi et al., 2013) and the presence of positive and negative shyness (i.e., nonpositive shyness) continues to be distinguishable during toddlerhood (Colonnesi et al., 2014) and childhood (Poole & Schmidt, 2019a). As well, the degree to which children engage in each type of expression of shyness appears to be associated with different socioemotional outcomes. As highlighted previously, positive shyness is associated with more positive outcomes when compared to nonpositive expressions of shyness. In both toddlerhood and childhood, positive shyness is associated with more sociability and less anxiety, while nonpositive shyness is associated with less sociability, more social anxiety, and greater behavioral manifestations of fear during self‐presentation tasks (Colonnesi et al., 2014; Poole & Schmidt, 2019a). Taken together, these studies suggest that: (1) different subtypes of shyness are distinguishable as early as infancy; (2) children who display more positive shy expressions may experience reduced risk for socioemotional difficulties; and (3) children who engage in relatively high levels of positive shy expressions may be indistinguishable from non‐shy children in some respects (Poole & Schmidt, 2019a).

One proposed explanation for why these distinct subtypes of shyness are associated with different outcomes is self‐regulation. It has been suggested that displays of positive affect in conjunction with avoidance related behaviors may function to regulate an individual’s arousal levels in novel social situations such that displays of positive affect may allow for modulation of arousal while children remain oriented toward novel social stimuli (Colonnesi et al., 2014; Poole & Schmidt, 2019a; Sroufe & Waters, 1976). In support of this notion, Asendorpf (1990) noted that within a coy smile, gaze aversion tends to occur during the most communicative part of the smile, suggesting that the smile may act as a regulatory mechanism by modulating one’s internal milieu. Moving forward, it would be helpful to determine whether positive and nonpositive shyness are in fact differentially related to level of self‐regulation, and whether individual differences in temperamental self‐regulation influence the development and maintenance of positive and nonpositive expressions of shyness.

Taken one step further, it would be interesting to determine whether different aspects of self‐regulation (e.g., inhibitory control, attentional shifting) work to moderate the association between positive and nonpositive shyness and social behavior or clinical outcomes similarly to when shyness is treated as a homogenous construct. Finally, using evolutionary frameworks such as differential susceptibility to guide future studies and analyses may provide us with valuable information about the multiple contexts that may support adaptive functioning in both positive and nonpositive expressions of shyness (Belsky & Pluess, 2009; see also Schmidt & Miskovic, 2013).